Con ed lockout

New York’s Consolidated Edison Power Co. made $1 billion in 2011 profits and its CEO Kevin Burke raked in a nearly 40 percent pay hike over the past several years, making it “hypocritical and inhumane for Con Ed to propose cuts in employee health care and retirement benefits,” says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

Con Ed locked out some 8,500 workers after contract negotiations stalled July 1. The power company wants to replace pensions with a 401(k)-type savings plan. After locking out the workers, members of Utility Workers UWUA Local 1-2, Burke cut off health care for all of them.

(Click here to tell Con Ed to end the lockout.)
http://nysaflcio.org/conedlockout/
In a letter to Burke dated July 9, Trumka wrote that

The skilled men and women represented by Local 1-2 keep Con Edison operating efficiently each day.
But by locking out the workers,

Con Edison has needlessly placed the public at risk of service interruptions as New Yorkers find themselves in the throes of a relentless heat wave.
Click here to show your support for workers.
http://nysaflcio.org/conedlockout/

One management replacement worker received burns on Monday at a job site in Brooklyn, and the Westchester Campus of Fordham University in West Harrison was without power for 24 hours after a construction crew damaged electrical cables. Classes were canceled Monday afternoon, when the campus lost power, and Tuesday. School will resume Thursday morning.

The United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of New York US Attorney Profile

Robert Nardoza
Public Affairs Officer

(718) 254-6323
Robert.Nardoza@usdoj.gov



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 22, 2011



PRESS RELEASE



FORMER CON ED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND PRIVATE CONTRACTORS SENTENCED FOR THEIR ROLES IN BRIBERY SCHEMES



Con Ed Inspectors Accepted Kickbacks to Approve Inflated Invoices and Expedite Payments on Multiple Con Ed Construction Projects


Fourteen former construction inspectors for Consolidated Edison Corporation of New York, Inc. (“Con Ed”) have been sentenced on charges stemming from schemes in which they solicited and accepted millions of dollars in kickbacks from contractors between 2000 and 2009 in connection with construction projects in Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester County. Also sentenced were two contractors for paying kickbacks and the brother-in-law of one of the inspectors for laundering bribe payments to conceal their true nature and source. All of the sentencing proceedings were held before United States District Court Judge Allyne R. Ross at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The sentences were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and mark the culmination of an extensive multi-agency investigation led by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service; and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Office of Inspector General.

Con Ed is the main utility provider in the New York City area for electric, gas and steam utility services. As such, it is responsible for maintaining and repairing its electrical, gas and steam facilities, as well as installing new lines, and for rebuilding and rerouting existing utility lines when construction projects interfere with them. Con Ed contracts with private construction companies to perform this work, and Con Ed inspectors monitor the projects to ensure that they are being performed safely and to engineering specifications and that Con Ed is not overpaying the contractors.

In the years following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Con Ed directed or took part in much of the subsurface construction in lower Manhattan, and received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds, mainly from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, to perform the work. In connection with these projects, Con Ed inspectors solicited bribes in exchange for approving contractor invoices that listed phantom pay items, allowing contractors to perform unnecessary additional work on the projects, and expediting Con Ed payments to the contractors. In the aggregate, these schemes cost Con Ed millions of dollars.

The investigation became public with the first series of arrests of the Con Ed inspectors on January 14, 2009. Since that time, officials at Con Ed, especially those employed in its internal auditing unit, have provided assistance to the government’s investigation.

All but two of the defendants arrested in connection with the investigation pleaded guilty. Contractor John Connelly was tried and convicted in August 2010, of paying bribes in separate schemes with various Con Ed inspectors, and retired Port Authority of New York and New Jersey project contractor, Nathaniel Ham, was tried and convicted in March 2011, of conspiring with his brother-in-law William Shannon and two other Con Ed inspectors to launder their bribe payments through Ham’s credit union accounts.

“After 9/11, these defendants were tasked with the responsibility of helping rebuild our city’s infrastructure. They focused instead on lining their own pockets at the expense of utility customers and residents of the metropolitan area,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “They have now been held to account.” Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the agencies that led the government’s investigation.

“The individuals sentenced in this investigation masterminded an unscrupulous financial scheme that essentially defrauded critical projects aimed at improving New York City’s infrastructure,” said James T. Hayes, Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations in New York. “HSI will pursue those who attempt to conceal their illicit gains and compromise the people’s trust in public works projects.”

“It is no secret that for years, kickbacks and bribes have been a part of the practice to win and dole out jobs in the construction industry,” stated Charles R. Pine, Special Agent-in-Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, New York. “What many people may not know is how many different governmental agencies can come together to investigate these crimes. I am very proud of the efforts our Special Agents contributed to this investigation, not only to trace the flow of illegal monies, but to be part of a special law enforcement team that successfully brought to justice one criminal after another. The sentences imposed send a strong message to the industry that those who engage in this type of criminal conduct are not safe from an investigation and prosecution that will land them in jail and forfeit what they stole. Ultimately, crime does not pay.”

Port Authority Inspector General Robert E. Van Etten said: “We work with our law enforcement partners to identify corruption within the construction industry which ultimately hurts both the public and government during the best of times. Its impact is more seriously felt during the current economic difficulties. These Con Ed and contractor prosecutions are an example of our joint efforts in this area.”

The government’s case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel Brownell, Charles Kleinberg, Claire Kedeshian, Sarah Coyne and Monica Ryan.

The Defendants:



PAUL SANABRIA
Age: 62
Sentence: 27 months’ incarceration, $15,000 in forfeiture to the government and $102,865.42 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: New York, New York.



JAMES COFFIN
Age: 56
Sentence: 30 months’ incarceration, $214,250 in forfeiture to the government and $132,800.65 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Lynbrook, New York.



THOMAS FETTER
Age: 63
Sentence: 30 months’ incarceration, $428,520 in forfeiture to the government and $112,708.59 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Middletown, New York.



RICHARD ZEBLER
Age: 52
Sentence: 24 months’ incarceration, $50,000 in forfeiture to the government and $68,881.18 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Bethpage, New York.



KEVIN COOK
Age: 55
Sentence: 27 months’ incarceration, $80,000 in forfeiture to the government and $239,109.24 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Middletown, New York.




ROCCO FASSACESIA
Age: 57
Sentence: 27 months’ incarceration, $357,320 in forfeiture to the government and $339,149.08 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Carmel, New York.



RICHARD GIANNETTO
Age: 57
Sentence: 1 month incarceration, $5,000 in forfeiture to the government and $1,978.28 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Pelham, New York



JOSEPH LIOI
Age: 59
Sentence: 1 month incarceration, $9,000 in forfeiture to the government and $19,582.19 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Patchogue, New York.



ABRAHAM PANAGI
Age: 58
Sentence: 21 months’ incarceration, $13,000 in forfeiture to the government and $54,350.26 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Dougleston, New York.



BRENDAN MAHER
Age: 32
Sentence: 3 years’ supervised release, $10,000 in forfeiture to the government and $70,759.55 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Massapequa, New York.



WILLIAM SHANNON
Age: 65
Sentence: 36 months’ incarceration, $250,000 in forfeiture to the government and $188,719.29 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Dix Hills, New York.



JOHN CONNELLY
Age: 46
Sentence: 18 months’ incarceration.
Residence: Andover, New Jersey.




JACK PALAZZO
Age: 58
Sentence: 12 months’ and 1 day incarceration, $150,000 in forfeiture to the government and $158,445.27 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Carmel, New York.



ANSELMO SAIZ
Age: 44
Sentence: 21 months’ incarceration and a fine of $100,000.
Residence: White Plains, New York.



NATHANIEL HAM
Age: 59
Sentence: 32 months’ incarceration and $1,136,034 in forfeiture to the government.
Residence: Dix Hills, New York.



LEONARD DIROMA
Age: 61
Sentence: 1 month incarceration, $7,000 in forfeiture to the government and $6,677.40 in restitution to Con Ed.
Residence: Mahopac, New York.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of JusticeUSA.govPrivacy PolicyProject Safe NeighborhoodsPSN Grantswww.regulations.govLegal Policies and Disclaimers

Yeah let's give Chain Electric a call--they'll help out management in a time of greed I mean need

Make no mistake, the lock-out decision by Con Ed management is part of aggressive strategy waged by corporate management around the country – class warfare -the 1% declared war on the rest of us – and the 1% is winning. The 1% has systematically lowered our standard of living to enhance their own. Con Ed workers are the frontline fighters for the working class. Their fight will determine whether the 1% will take more and more and leave the rest of us with less and less…. whether the economic benefits of our democracy will be horded by that 1% or shared with the working people who make our companies – and our country – work.

Fairness is not a word in management’s vocabulary. Con Ed workers deserve a fair contract – that gives a fair return on the work they invest in Con Edison to make it strong.

But this is about more than just fairness for Con Ed employees. Con Ed made a strategic move to lock-out its workers to enhance its bargaining-table position. However, while it continues to provide electricity, it has left the public in the dark about the lock-out’s cost – in money and safety – to those who sit at kitchen tables and work tables in Con Ed’s service area.

What is the monetary cost to ratepayers for the meals and motels for the imported round-the-clock out-of-state contractors? What is the monetary cost to ratepayers for the surcharge imposed for estimated rather than meter-read bills? Only Con Ed could continue to charge for a service it is not providing – then impose a surcharge because it is not providing it!

What is the risk to the public from the inexperience of the replacements? Managers who are have not for a long time - or never – worked the jobs they are now asked to do. We’ve already had at least one manager injured. Have you seen them try to drive rigs they’ve never driven before? Underground is not overhead -out-of-town contractors are have never seen a complex underground system like New York’s. How many incidents have occurred without public notice?

What is the danger to customers’ appliances – refrigerators, air conditioners, computers, medical equipment - from the voltage reductions – which have been acknowledged but downplayed by Con Edison? How severe have the reductions been? How long can our equipment take the strain – while Con Ed has off-loaded the risk of damage from its equipment to its customers’ equipment?

And remind me again – what is the excuse for locking out the 8500 workers who have been effectively providing the public with safe reliable power?